Read this earlier this morning; "crap" is far too polite a word. I used to have a modicum of respect for the ACLU. They've done some good work over the years. But they now seem rather determined to negate that with BS like this.
I also see where they've taken up a free speech case involving the NRA while very publicly saying they in no way agree with or support the NRA's mission. The NRA, while having unsuccessfully tried to claim bankruptcy, has resources of its own to fight whatever legal cases come its way. So, WTF??!! But then this is an organization that once fought for the free speech rights of the KKK. (I was an NRA member a lifetime ago and absolutely loathe what LaPierre and the rest have done to that once decent organization, but to be clear, I'm absolutely not equating the NRA to the KKK.)
Send your $$ somewhere more deserving, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. They seem to have their collective heads screwed on straight and show no sign of losing them for the foreseeable future.
Well, except the SPLC has never responded to my numerous attempts to communicate as to why they persist in labeling Ft Bragg, California, as a “Public Symbol of the Confederacy” though named in 1857 for a Federal soldier long before the Civil War. While I’ll agree the optics are bad, the fact remains it is not a symbol of the CSA any more than Austria remains a Symbol of the Third Reich because Hither was Austrian.
In perusing the link you posted, I found nothing about Ft. Bragg, California. Not saying there isn't something there, since I don't have time to read every word of the rather lengthy piece. I did find a reference to the much better-known Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, a huge U.S. Army base which started life as Camp Bragg in 1918 as an artillery training facility, long after the end of the Civil War. Both locations were named after Braxton Bragg, who graduated West Point and served as an artillery officer in the United States Army until resigning his commission in 1856. He then chose to serve the Confederacy as an officer in its army when the Civil War started.
The best I can determine, Ft Bragg, Ca., began as a military garrison in 1857. Its military use eventually ended, and it became incorporated as a city in 1889, retaining the name, and it's a popular tourist destination today.
I certainly understand the objection to a U.S. Army base being named after a Confederate army general. (Ft. Bragg, N.C., is in fact now Ft. Liberty.) But if the SPLC is opposed to the place name of the historical city of Ft. Bragg, Ca., that's rather lame. At the time of its naming (4 years before the Civil War), Bragg had only been a U.S. Army officer, there is no longer any American military association with the city (other than historical, as far as I can see), and if the citizens are ok with the name, so should be the SPLC. But any organization actually working for the "public good" can't be expected to get *everything* right, every time. But better to screw it up about something as relatively innocuous as a place name than a policy that will be detrimental to employees and working people everywhere, such as the ACLU is undertaking.
As an aside: there are 119 counties in this country named after Confederate military figures or prominent Confederate politicians. We can't rename every damned thing in this country associated with the Confederacy. Nor should we. That would truly be "whitewashing" our history.
Expand the map, and look at coastal Northern California. What’s really lame about the SPLC is they aren’t willing to listen to facts, and in my view, libeling Ft Bragg. Trust me, everyone in Ft Bragg is aware of its ugly younger sibling, as the mail sometimes goes there! BTW, there was never a garrison in Ft Bragg, CA, and nothing remains honoring the CSA, except perhaps Lee’s Chinese Restaurant… lol
Taking down flags, removing Confederate statues or memorials etc. from public property? Sure. Fine. Good idea. But renaming or 'disappearing' *everything* Confederate-related? You going to rename every town or city south of the Mason Dixon line? Every place name for every Civil War battle that happened on then-Confederate held ground? There's no honor in what the Confederacy did, but what you're apparently advocating is surely a lost cause.
Were we not on Tom’s substack, I’d thank you for the mansplaining as I usually find the comments analytic. As it is I’ll assume you realize that ‘disappearing’ has been achieved by voters.
being very old and, happily, very unhip about what the young folks say, I am mystified by what the fuck "mansplaining" means. if it means (as I THINK it means) a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending or patronizing manner, the whole thing strikes me as very, very subjective. and IMHO, it is part of what I feel is a degradation of language we don't rally need. I know I can be an asshole about this, but I've been an English Major all my life and every day, I find more evidence that people just don't give a fuck about this. I could start with "fulsome" and the pronunciations of words like "electoral" and "formidable." and then it gets work. my friend Ruth will have no truck with "my bad" (which I use, but with obvious sarcasm) and "so fun" (which just sounds dumb).
it just occurred to me that this could be construed, probably correctly, as a mini-tantrum.
I apologize for the tantrum, but not for the shit I'm angry about.
I've had any number of people disagree with me about different things. But mansplaining? Never been accused of that one before, Gail. So, thanks. Glad to finally check that one off my list. Would say I'm sorry to disappoint you on the analytical front, but I write what I mean in my comments here and elsewhere. So, while you seem to be offended by what I wrote to the point of needing to resort to this type of reply, I want to assure you that no offense has been taken on my part from it. And since you've given me no reason here to change my mind, I'll just end this (and any further comment) by saying that I stand by what I wrote.
The Southern Poverty Law Center uses smear tactics in an attempt to discredit policy opponents so that the latter will not be taken seriously. Here’s more information on that, from an open letter to a New Yorker writer who cited the SPLC in calling the Center for Immigration Studies a hate group.
Something I’ve noted over the years are the great number of professional white collar people who say they are Democrats and evince a distaste for racism and a general liberality in their attitudes toward others, and minorities especially, yet have no sympathy at all for labor. They are skeptical of unions and think workers should just work and be grateful for the job. Very common attitude. (They also tend towards fiscal conservatism but that’s a different conversation.) And lately, with the rise of Trumpism, they conflate their anti-worker sentiment with the ignorant white racists they see on the news with their red trucker hats, and tell themselves that that they are good Democrats for wanting to discomfort such people.
They are not Democrats at all. Just slightly more polite Republicans.
Back in the late sixtys, it was "Bourgeois Black Folks". It is interesting that the three supervtsors referenced in Ms. Oh's complaint were Black, the current ACLU Director is Black also. Black supervisors have every bit a right to be ass holes as anyone else, but if they are called out on it in the workplace, the issue at hand is the assholeness that that is being challenged, not the asshole, because of his/her race. Equality in the workplace means being able to call an asshole an asshole without fear of retribution.
The beatings comment is a very very common joke that in no way has an iota of reference to slavery. It's more about dictating an undictateable (Fine, spellcheck - so I made that word up) thing like morale.
As for the other two, if any time anyone makes any comment of a negative or cautionary nature about anyone who happens to also be of a minority status, it is seen as racist, how on earth can corporate or small business office life continue effectively in a diverse environment? We can feel sure she never said anything actually racist or harassing because if she had, they'd be all over it.
I proudly wore a t-shirt with the image of a pirate ship captain on the front surrounded by the words of "The Beatings Will..." to department meetings at the university I retired from. They understoot my possition without saying a word.
Too late to deal with the ACLU. I ended my membership when they signed on to Citizens United, one of the most politically destruction decisions ever. Attended a meeting at a local college where an ACLU rep lawyer tried to explain their position on it after the decision was rendered, and three quarters of us present ceremoniously tore up our cards as we walked out the door. I remain unforgiving about this.
Thank you for bringing up this stance of the ACLU. I was not currently aware of that. I read a few ACLU posts about it, which I found arrogant, tone-deaf and counterfactual. While giving lip service to concern about how the massive amounts of money in politics "has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system", and that "the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected", they nonetheless hold onto the notion that their "constitutional commitment to freedom of speech" means no limits are permissible. The distinction between a corporation and an individual are erased, and they make the exaggerated assertion that campaign finance laws serve to "ban political speech", which is ludicrous. They naively suggest that the solution is to "expand...the resources available for political advocacy...a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate...[and] carefully drawn disclosure rules." Really? When and how will that pipe-dream happen? I also read one very good article from 2012 from former ACLU attorneys, who were critical of the ACLU position (The Nation, 4/9/2012, Why the ACLU Is Wrong About ‘Citizens United’), for the exact reasons that progressives generally cite to explain why Citizens United was such a harmful decision. The logic offered in the case is reminiscent of the same sort of blind assertion that the Supreme Court relied upon in cutting loose the states to re-engage in voter suppression without a need for federal review, which anyone who knew anything about it predicted would happen virtually immediately, which it did.
Wow, "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is just standard coping in tough times (I work in Tech, and I can assure that we bounce from one tough time to another every damn quarter).
Hmmm. I wonder why Biden would have fired that mgmt kiss-ass? Maybe, just maybe, he was just trash?
“Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, said Robb “has consistently neglected his statutory duty to uphold workers’ right to stand together and negotiate for better working conditions.”
Thanks for the heads up Tom. I will definitely follow up with this, and as a "Card Carrying Member", I will stress that such activity will affect my continued membrship.
I have been a supporter of the ACLU and have made contributions to the ACLU in the past.
I am writing to register my concern that, in the case of terminated ACLU employee Katherine Oh, the actions that the ACLU has taken to block her from having her case heard by the NLRB are actions that, if this woman had worked for another employer, the ACLU would be defending her right to avoid being forced into arbitration since her arbitration agreement was not collectively bargained, and she therefore has access to the NLRB, as long as the NLRB concludes that employer behavior violated the National Labor Relations Act.
This appears to me to be a case where the ACLU is acting like any other corporation, trying to evade and even dismantle the rules designed to protect the civil rights of employees vis-a-vis their employer.
Employees should not be forced into arbitration when the employer has engaged in unacceptable behavior and the employee's existing arbitration agreement is not part of a collective bargaining agreement.
In my view, the ACLU should not be behaving toward their own employee this way.
The implications of this case go far beyond just Ms. Oh and would be very damaging to the rights of workers who are not in a collective bargaining setting to gain access to protections of the NLRB.
Thank you Gary. I will use your note as a template. I have been too busy all day to work out a letter to that organization that I and my parents have supported since I was a child, seventy or so years ago. I thanked Tom for the heads up and I will snail mail a letter with their renewal letter back to them in their envelope. They will at least have to open it. It is, as so much today is, a real piss-off, to say the least.
As Joyce always ends her letter, "We are all in this together". A quick comment on other's comments keep us all a bit more focussed and up to speed. You usually sound on top of it, Gary.
I gave up membership in the ACLU a few years back. They seemingly want it both ways. Power (and blinders) does corrupt and these people can't seem to see past their own noses.
Fwiw, I think of the ACLU as a *liberal* organization, not necessarily a progressive one. That's "liberal" in the classic sense of supporting speech (etc.) whether you agree with it or not. They defend the Klan. They defended the Nazis' right to march in Skokie, Illinois (1977), in what became a very famous SCOTUS case. Theoretically I agree with this position, or at least I did until the onset of the Trump administration, though I've never been a regular donor to the ACLU.
Now? Now I see more clearly the drawbacks of that liberal position for anyone who belongs to a group regularly targeted by hateful speech that stops short (often barely) of advocating violence: people of color, women of any color, Jewish people, gay men and lesbians, immigrants, et al. The line between nonviolent and violent is fuzzy and easily crossed, especially when "incitement" is added to the mix -- as it was on January 6, 2021.
I see just as clearly the perils of restricting speech in any way: Ron DeSantis and others have made it crystal-clear who they want to protect and whose speech they want to shut down. So I donate not to the ACLU but to organizations supporting and protecting the kind of speech I think we need more of.
Following up, also. Didn’t realize they supported the Citizens United fiasco… either of these bone-headed moves are enough to make me walk, as I gather others are doing. Bah.
Thanks for this bit of wake up, TC. Shifting my money to SPLC. Clearly, at least to me, the ACLU is just following the oppressive corporation script in this little foray.... Amazing use of racial identity.
Read this earlier this morning; "crap" is far too polite a word. I used to have a modicum of respect for the ACLU. They've done some good work over the years. But they now seem rather determined to negate that with BS like this.
I also see where they've taken up a free speech case involving the NRA while very publicly saying they in no way agree with or support the NRA's mission. The NRA, while having unsuccessfully tried to claim bankruptcy, has resources of its own to fight whatever legal cases come its way. So, WTF??!! But then this is an organization that once fought for the free speech rights of the KKK. (I was an NRA member a lifetime ago and absolutely loathe what LaPierre and the rest have done to that once decent organization, but to be clear, I'm absolutely not equating the NRA to the KKK.)
Send your $$ somewhere more deserving, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. They seem to have their collective heads screwed on straight and show no sign of losing them for the foreseeable future.
Good suggestion.
Well, except the SPLC has never responded to my numerous attempts to communicate as to why they persist in labeling Ft Bragg, California, as a “Public Symbol of the Confederacy” though named in 1857 for a Federal soldier long before the Civil War. While I’ll agree the optics are bad, the fact remains it is not a symbol of the CSA any more than Austria remains a Symbol of the Third Reich because Hither was Austrian.
https://www.splcenter.org/20190201/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy#findings
There you go, John, trying to reference Reality again. :-)
The point might just be that he BECAME a Confederate.
My point, above, was that Austria is not vilified for starting WW2. It’s the all too common logical fallacy of genetics.
In perusing the link you posted, I found nothing about Ft. Bragg, California. Not saying there isn't something there, since I don't have time to read every word of the rather lengthy piece. I did find a reference to the much better-known Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, a huge U.S. Army base which started life as Camp Bragg in 1918 as an artillery training facility, long after the end of the Civil War. Both locations were named after Braxton Bragg, who graduated West Point and served as an artillery officer in the United States Army until resigning his commission in 1856. He then chose to serve the Confederacy as an officer in its army when the Civil War started.
The best I can determine, Ft Bragg, Ca., began as a military garrison in 1857. Its military use eventually ended, and it became incorporated as a city in 1889, retaining the name, and it's a popular tourist destination today.
I certainly understand the objection to a U.S. Army base being named after a Confederate army general. (Ft. Bragg, N.C., is in fact now Ft. Liberty.) But if the SPLC is opposed to the place name of the historical city of Ft. Bragg, Ca., that's rather lame. At the time of its naming (4 years before the Civil War), Bragg had only been a U.S. Army officer, there is no longer any American military association with the city (other than historical, as far as I can see), and if the citizens are ok with the name, so should be the SPLC. But any organization actually working for the "public good" can't be expected to get *everything* right, every time. But better to screw it up about something as relatively innocuous as a place name than a policy that will be detrimental to employees and working people everywhere, such as the ACLU is undertaking.
As an aside: there are 119 counties in this country named after Confederate military figures or prominent Confederate politicians. We can't rename every damned thing in this country associated with the Confederacy. Nor should we. That would truly be "whitewashing" our history.
Expand the map, and look at coastal Northern California. What’s really lame about the SPLC is they aren’t willing to listen to facts, and in my view, libeling Ft Bragg. Trust me, everyone in Ft Bragg is aware of its ugly younger sibling, as the mail sometimes goes there! BTW, there was never a garrison in Ft Bragg, CA, and nothing remains honoring the CSA, except perhaps Lee’s Chinese Restaurant… lol
I see I misspoke - nothing there ever honored the CSA, for obvious reasons.
Why not? History is in books, not memorials to lost causes.
Taking down flags, removing Confederate statues or memorials etc. from public property? Sure. Fine. Good idea. But renaming or 'disappearing' *everything* Confederate-related? You going to rename every town or city south of the Mason Dixon line? Every place name for every Civil War battle that happened on then-Confederate held ground? There's no honor in what the Confederacy did, but what you're apparently advocating is surely a lost cause.
Were we not on Tom’s substack, I’d thank you for the mansplaining as I usually find the comments analytic. As it is I’ll assume you realize that ‘disappearing’ has been achieved by voters.
being very old and, happily, very unhip about what the young folks say, I am mystified by what the fuck "mansplaining" means. if it means (as I THINK it means) a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending or patronizing manner, the whole thing strikes me as very, very subjective. and IMHO, it is part of what I feel is a degradation of language we don't rally need. I know I can be an asshole about this, but I've been an English Major all my life and every day, I find more evidence that people just don't give a fuck about this. I could start with "fulsome" and the pronunciations of words like "electoral" and "formidable." and then it gets work. my friend Ruth will have no truck with "my bad" (which I use, but with obvious sarcasm) and "so fun" (which just sounds dumb).
it just occurred to me that this could be construed, probably correctly, as a mini-tantrum.
I apologize for the tantrum, but not for the shit I'm angry about.
I've had any number of people disagree with me about different things. But mansplaining? Never been accused of that one before, Gail. So, thanks. Glad to finally check that one off my list. Would say I'm sorry to disappoint you on the analytical front, but I write what I mean in my comments here and elsewhere. So, while you seem to be offended by what I wrote to the point of needing to resort to this type of reply, I want to assure you that no offense has been taken on my part from it. And since you've given me no reason here to change my mind, I'll just end this (and any further comment) by saying that I stand by what I wrote.
The Southern Poverty Law Center uses smear tactics in an attempt to discredit policy opponents so that the latter will not be taken seriously. Here’s more information on that, from an open letter to a New Yorker writer who cited the SPLC in calling the Center for Immigration Studies a hate group.
http://cis.org/kammer/open-letter-new-yorkers-jonathan-blitzer-pt-1
And still more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-labeling-my-organization-a-hate-group-shuts-down-public-debate/2017/03/17/656ab9c8-0812-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html ?utm_term=.dcdc0566965e
This one's about how SPLC is mainly about the money
https://www.thenation.com/article/king-hate-business/
Something I’ve noted over the years are the great number of professional white collar people who say they are Democrats and evince a distaste for racism and a general liberality in their attitudes toward others, and minorities especially, yet have no sympathy at all for labor. They are skeptical of unions and think workers should just work and be grateful for the job. Very common attitude. (They also tend towards fiscal conservatism but that’s a different conversation.) And lately, with the rise of Trumpism, they conflate their anti-worker sentiment with the ignorant white racists they see on the news with their red trucker hats, and tell themselves that that they are good Democrats for wanting to discomfort such people.
They are not Democrats at all. Just slightly more polite Republicans.
They're what I call the "Bourgeois Bolsheviks."
Back in the late sixtys, it was "Bourgeois Black Folks". It is interesting that the three supervtsors referenced in Ms. Oh's complaint were Black, the current ACLU Director is Black also. Black supervisors have every bit a right to be ass holes as anyone else, but if they are called out on it in the workplace, the issue at hand is the assholeness that that is being challenged, not the asshole, because of his/her race. Equality in the workplace means being able to call an asshole an asshole without fear of retribution.
Like that last sentence, Ransom
Spot on. Proud white collar union member here.
“White collar” just describes my job, not my values. I know too many white collar colleagues however who see it oppositely.
The beatings comment is a very very common joke that in no way has an iota of reference to slavery. It's more about dictating an undictateable (Fine, spellcheck - so I made that word up) thing like morale.
As for the other two, if any time anyone makes any comment of a negative or cautionary nature about anyone who happens to also be of a minority status, it is seen as racist, how on earth can corporate or small business office life continue effectively in a diverse environment? We can feel sure she never said anything actually racist or harassing because if she had, they'd be all over it.
I proudly wore a t-shirt with the image of a pirate ship captain on the front surrounded by the words of "The Beatings Will..." to department meetings at the university I retired from. They understoot my possition without saying a word.
I know, right?
Too late to deal with the ACLU. I ended my membership when they signed on to Citizens United, one of the most politically destruction decisions ever. Attended a meeting at a local college where an ACLU rep lawyer tried to explain their position on it after the decision was rendered, and three quarters of us present ceremoniously tore up our cards as we walked out the door. I remain unforgiving about this.
Thank you for bringing up this stance of the ACLU. I was not currently aware of that. I read a few ACLU posts about it, which I found arrogant, tone-deaf and counterfactual. While giving lip service to concern about how the massive amounts of money in politics "has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system", and that "the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected", they nonetheless hold onto the notion that their "constitutional commitment to freedom of speech" means no limits are permissible. The distinction between a corporation and an individual are erased, and they make the exaggerated assertion that campaign finance laws serve to "ban political speech", which is ludicrous. They naively suggest that the solution is to "expand...the resources available for political advocacy...a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate...[and] carefully drawn disclosure rules." Really? When and how will that pipe-dream happen? I also read one very good article from 2012 from former ACLU attorneys, who were critical of the ACLU position (The Nation, 4/9/2012, Why the ACLU Is Wrong About ‘Citizens United’), for the exact reasons that progressives generally cite to explain why Citizens United was such a harmful decision. The logic offered in the case is reminiscent of the same sort of blind assertion that the Supreme Court relied upon in cutting loose the states to re-engage in voter suppression without a need for federal review, which anyone who knew anything about it predicted would happen virtually immediately, which it did.
Wow, "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is just standard coping in tough times (I work in Tech, and I can assure that we bounce from one tough time to another every damn quarter).
Hmmm. I wonder why Biden would have fired that mgmt kiss-ass? Maybe, just maybe, he was just trash?
“Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, said Robb “has consistently neglected his statutory duty to uphold workers’ right to stand together and negotiate for better working conditions.”
Worth the read:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/20/trump-labor-board-460978
Thanks for the heads up Tom. I will definitely follow up with this, and as a "Card Carrying Member", I will stress that such activity will affect my continued membrship.
I have submitted the following to the ACLU (go to their Donor Relations page (<<<https://donor-relations.aclu.org/hc/en-us/requests/new>>>):
I have been a supporter of the ACLU and have made contributions to the ACLU in the past.
I am writing to register my concern that, in the case of terminated ACLU employee Katherine Oh, the actions that the ACLU has taken to block her from having her case heard by the NLRB are actions that, if this woman had worked for another employer, the ACLU would be defending her right to avoid being forced into arbitration since her arbitration agreement was not collectively bargained, and she therefore has access to the NLRB, as long as the NLRB concludes that employer behavior violated the National Labor Relations Act.
This appears to me to be a case where the ACLU is acting like any other corporation, trying to evade and even dismantle the rules designed to protect the civil rights of employees vis-a-vis their employer.
Employees should not be forced into arbitration when the employer has engaged in unacceptable behavior and the employee's existing arbitration agreement is not part of a collective bargaining agreement.
In my view, the ACLU should not be behaving toward their own employee this way.
The implications of this case go far beyond just Ms. Oh and would be very damaging to the rights of workers who are not in a collective bargaining setting to gain access to protections of the NLRB.
Thank you Gary. I will use your note as a template. I have been too busy all day to work out a letter to that organization that I and my parents have supported since I was a child, seventy or so years ago. I thanked Tom for the heads up and I will snail mail a letter with their renewal letter back to them in their envelope. They will at least have to open it. It is, as so much today is, a real piss-off, to say the least.
I'm in a Jeff Tiedrich frame of mind.
I was grateful that one of the commenters mentioned this. It has escaped me.
Gary
As Joyce always ends her letter, "We are all in this together". A quick comment on other's comments keep us all a bit more focussed and up to speed. You usually sound on top of it, Gary.
I gave up membership in the ACLU a few years back. They seemingly want it both ways. Power (and blinders) does corrupt and these people can't seem to see past their own noses.
Fwiw, I think of the ACLU as a *liberal* organization, not necessarily a progressive one. That's "liberal" in the classic sense of supporting speech (etc.) whether you agree with it or not. They defend the Klan. They defended the Nazis' right to march in Skokie, Illinois (1977), in what became a very famous SCOTUS case. Theoretically I agree with this position, or at least I did until the onset of the Trump administration, though I've never been a regular donor to the ACLU.
Now? Now I see more clearly the drawbacks of that liberal position for anyone who belongs to a group regularly targeted by hateful speech that stops short (often barely) of advocating violence: people of color, women of any color, Jewish people, gay men and lesbians, immigrants, et al. The line between nonviolent and violent is fuzzy and easily crossed, especially when "incitement" is added to the mix -- as it was on January 6, 2021.
I see just as clearly the perils of restricting speech in any way: Ron DeSantis and others have made it crystal-clear who they want to protect and whose speech they want to shut down. So I donate not to the ACLU but to organizations supporting and protecting the kind of speech I think we need more of.
Southern Poverty Law is a very good donation use of
your money. Have been totally thrown off of the ACLU
for last few years.
well, they won't be getting my pathetic little contributions anymore.
it'd be nice to find an organization that is not, in some way, acting hypocritically.
but the NLRB is one New Deal invention that's essential if this country is going to retain, at very least, the APPEARANCE of fairness.
Following up, also. Didn’t realize they supported the Citizens United fiasco… either of these bone-headed moves are enough to make me walk, as I gather others are doing. Bah.
Thanks for the info. Just transferred my donation from ACLU to SPLC.
Thanks for this bit of wake up, TC. Shifting my money to SPLC. Clearly, at least to me, the ACLU is just following the oppressive corporation script in this little foray.... Amazing use of racial identity.
Thanks for this (hidden) info. Not sure if I'm a member, but if I am I will be leaving with some words of disgust.